High Courts may not interfere with concurrent factual findings unless there's evidence of perversity; imposing an excessive sentence can be remedied.

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumkandam and Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in S.T No.135/2005 and Crl.A No.86/2007 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the N.I Act’), are under challenge in this revision petition filed by the accused in the said case.

2. The case relates to the dishonour of a cheque dated

24.10.2004 for an amount of Rs.42,000/- which the petitioner executed and issued to the complainant/first respondent. Since the petitioner did not pay the cheque amount despite statutory notice issued by the complainant/first respondent, the criminal prosecution was launched against him before the learned Magistrate.

3. After a full fledged trial, with the examination of the complainant as PW1 and the marking of five documents from the part of the complainant as Exts.P1 to P5, and also with the examination of one witness and the petitioner as DW1 and DW2 and the marking of three documents as Exts.D1, D2 and D3 series, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months with a further direction to pay compensation Rs.42,000/- to the complainant/first respondent. In default of payment of compensation, a further tenure of simple imprisonment for two months was provided. Though the petitioner challenged the above verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the Courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the first respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. As already stated above, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court relied on the evidence adduced by the complainant through the oral testimony of PW1 and the documents marked as Exts.P1 to P5 to arrive at the finding that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act was brought out against the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner did not dispute the execution and issuance of Ext.P1 cheque dated 24.10.2004 for an amount of Rs.42,000/- to the first respondent/complainant. However, the contention of the petitioner was that the aforesaid cheque was not supported by consideration. The petitioner put forward a defence case that, in connection with a property transaction with the first respondent, there was a settlement talk at the instance of the Circle Inspector of Police, Nedumkandam and that Ext.P1 cheque was issued as part of the terms and conditions of the above agreement. According to the petitioner, the first respondent attempted to encash Ext.P1 cheque against the understanding in the above agreement. The Courts below rejected the above defence case and arrived at the finding that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the petitioner in discharge of a legally enforceable debt which he incurred with the first respondent. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court proceeded with the conviction and sentence with the aforesaid finding arrived after analysing the evidence on record. On going through the case records and the reasonings adopted by the Courts below in the impugned judgments, I find no reason to interfere with the above concurrent findings on facts by the